Here is the link for commenting on this bill. Or contact dawn@vermont.org
It’s flying way beneath the radar and I don’t see any attention being paid to it by other forums. This is the way bad bills become law. Don’t let it happen!!
________________________________________________________________
You’ll hear lots of defenders of H.513, including Governor Shumlin, insisting that the changes this bill proposes will benefit “all interested parties” by making the process “less cumbersome.” Those soothing words are carefully selected Grade “A” baloney.
H.513 would change the rules under Act 250 so that all opportunity to introduce evidence in the process would end with the initial District Commission decision. Any appeal of that decision, which 98% of the time finds in favor of developers, would be considered “on the record” from the District Commission hearings. This would change the current practice of “de novo” hearings on appeal, that allow all interested parties to introduce new evidence pertinent to the items specifically under appeal.
How would this change affect citizen access, you well might ask? I can tell you from more than a theoretical position since I was one of a group who were given interested party status in the Act 250 review of a permit for JLDavis Properties to build a Walmart here in St. Albans.
As was the case for us, the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, most often when citizens seek access to the Act 250 process, they are doing so from a position of great economic disadvantage. Developers typically approach Act 250 with much deeper pockets than any private individuals or grassroots community groups that might oppose them.
If those private individuals or community groups are unable to bring a full compliment of legal counsel and expert witnesses before the District Commission in the initial review, under the provisions of H.513, they would not be able to reinforce their limited presentation to the District Commission with additional expert witnesses or other testimony in the appeal phase.
In short, if concerned citizens do not have plenty of financial resources to draw from at the very beginning of Act 250 proceedings, they might as well save themselves the filing fee and give up from the start.
H.513 essentially further tips the likely outcome of Act 250 proceedings overwhelmingly toward the developer. With a 98% success rate for developers right now, do they really need any further advantage?
Like permits in general, most people probably find the topic of Act 250 pretty dry and sexless, and that accounts for the power that developers have gained over a system initially created to give sustainable communities, the environment and local economies their shot at surviving the vagaries of a short-sighted marketplace.
When first created in 1970, it was to have been complimented by a statewide planning piece that would have captured a vision for sustainability throughout this small but distinctively rural state. Sadly that planning piece never bore fruit, and we were left with the incomplete toolbox of Act 250, which was still an excellent start.
It continues to be the only statewide planning tool of its magnitude in the nation.
Under the Douglas administration, Act 250 was repeatedly raided in order to weaken the public access component and make the process more “development friendly.”
As originally structured, Act 250 provided for local District Commissions to hear arguments pertinent to ten specific criteria, and render a decision as to whether or not a permit should be issued. The District Commission, appointed by the governor did not necessarily reflect any particular expertise, but was drawn from the community presumably representing individuals who had credibility for their constituents. An appeal of the District Commission decision could be made to an Environmental Board, comprised of a group of individuals, ideally with some experience or expertise that potentially gave them a deeper understanding of the ten areas of review.
Under Douglas, the Environmental Board was replaced by an Environmental Court where each appeal of a District Commission’s decision must be heard and ruled upon by a single jurist, who typically has very limited technical understanding of the criteria, but nevertheless must undertake to render a final decision on what can be a very broad spectrum of highly nuanced issues.
Yielding to pressures from developers, legislators have made repeated raids on Act 250, touting them as “streamlining” efforts. In fact, such “streamlining” only serves to reduce public access to the process, and increase control of it by developers.
The history of narrowing citizen access to Act 250 is too long to go into here, except to say that H.513 represents a real new threat to citizen access. Please seriously consider what this could mean to the future of the state and call your representatives, now, before it’s too late.
Do you honestly want developers to drive the direction and quality of growth in this lovely little state? How invested do you really think they are beyond satisfying their bottom line?
Without an effective Act 250 permit system gently applying the coasting brakes in Vermont on development that was running away almost everywhere else in America a few short years ago, we would now be looking at a far worse economic situation at home than we are.
An example by Merriam-Webster of the word cumbersome used in a sample sentence says quite about the state of play in the overall battle against regulation.The catch phrases are pre-loaded.
http://www.merriam-webster.com…
Sue is driving home an important, but very sad, point. Act 250 is like an eroding shoreline. Wave after wave of commercial and development assaults continue to wash away the Act’s essential strengths. As a lay theologian — and a Catholic who experienced Vatican II — I know that one conservative Cardinal was reported to have said, after Vatican II was adjourned, “Now, it is time to put on the brakes.” Well, for both Vatican II and Act 250, the brakes aren’t on; the car is actually in reverse!
Doing some historical research about Vermont in the 1930’s and looking at what is happening today, I have begun to question our inherent belief in how “green” we are, and I am not alone in asking questions.
— in A Landscape History of New England, edited by Blake Harrison, who lives here, and Richard Judd, John Elder of Middlebury College writes in his afterward: “Even in environmentally oriented Vermont, astonishingly little action has been taken to steer our economic and transportation systems away from dependence on fossil fuels.”
— Matt Dalbey, who is now Director of the Federal and State division of EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities, did his Ph.D. dissertation about the role of parkways in the 1930’s, contrasting Virginia’s Skyline Drive with Vermont’s proposed, and ultimately rejected, Green Mountain Parkway. In his book, Dalbey wonders about the subsequent “years of ski resort construction and the complementary market-driven sprawl (albeit better regulated sprawl than in other states)” and their effect on Vermont.
Yes, we might be “better” than other states, but perhaps it is time to ask: Has Vermont looked as relatively good as it has because other states have simply been so bad? Or as an old book title I remember went, “Been Down So Long, It Looks Like Up to Me.”
The testimony on this bill in Senate Natural Resources & Energy was overwhelming opposed, except by the Shumlin administration appointees, Ernie Pomerleau and GBIC, Tom Torti and Lakes Region Chamber of Commerce. The environmental law committee of the Vermont Bar Association provided much of the testimony, and attorneys working for both developers and citizens provided cogent arguments against the proposal. Organizations like VCE that assist citizens in participation in the process asked but were not given the opportunity to testify.
In short, this was a political bill rammed through by Gov. Shumlin more than two weeks after cross-over. Sen. Dick McCormack, who has chaired an Act 250 District Commission, voted against bill, as did Sen. Mark MacDonald. The three votes in favor were the two Republicans on the SNRE committee, and the chair, obviously doing the Governor’s bidding.
Reasons this is a bad bill:
–poor process, inadequate testimony from affected parties, testimony that was heard was overwhelmingly in opposition
–will turn Act 250 District Commission hearings — the one good thing citizens have, which was confirmed when I conducted focus groups around the state and everyone praised the District Commission process — into a Public Service Board type hearing with lawyers for developers objecting to all evidence citizens attempt to put into the record, requiring the need for lawyers to represent citizens. Note the legislation calls for prefiled testimony as one option. Ask any citizen what that is and they look at you with a blank stare.
–ignores numerous constructive ideas for improving the permitting process, gathered via focus groups.
The Shumlin administration wanted this on-the-record provision to satisfy a political favor. The testimony was never for the purpose of coming up with good ideas, and when the testimony did not support the legislation, the administration got a waiver from cross-over and tortured those of us involved behind the scenes in so-called negotiations, dragging on week after week with Fridays being the day we got badgered the most. The focus groups held did come up with good ideas, and the Shumlin administration chose the worst one to move.
Call your Senators, they’re the ones who can do something about this absurd attack on Vermont’s citizenry.
a fundamental change in the process; developers of large projects should not be the source of the analyses regarding the various criteria; developers should pay to have the analyses done by either commission staff (new hires and perhaps shared throughout the state) or by consultants not affiliated with the developers
at present, the commission is dependent on information from self-interested parties; this is obviously not the best way to ensure an objective record
A progressive-minded democrat, instead of a triangulating technocrat?
Seriously, we have very little time to reduce our consumption and switch to renewables, and here’s the Governor handing rapacious developers the one tool that will enable them to most rapidly worsen our overall consumption – in addition to turning VT into just another lame, overdeveloped McMansion-land full of unwalkable “communities” comprising mostly strip malls and pavement.